High-order finite volume and finite element methods offer impressive accuracy and cost efficiency when solving hyperbolic conservation laws with smooth solutions. However, if the solution contains discontinuities, these high-order methods can introduce unphysical oscillations and severe overshoots/undershoots. Slope limiters are an effective remedy, combating these oscillations by preserving monotonicity. Some limiters can even maintain a strict maximum principle in the numerical solution. They can be classified into one of two categories: a priori and a posteriori limiters. The former revises the high-order solution based only on data at the current time tn, while the latter involves computing a candidate solution at tn+1 and iteratively recomputing it until some conditions are satisfied. These two limiting paradigms are available for both finite volume and finite element methods.In this work, we develop a methodology to compare a priori and a posteriori limiters for finite volume solvers at arbitrarily high order. We select the maximum principle preserving scheme presented in [1,2] as our a priori limited scheme. For a posteriori limiting, we adopt the methodology presented in [3] and search for so-called troubled cells in the candidate solution. We revise these cells using a robust MUSCL fallback scheme, diverging from the traditional Multi-dimensional Optimal Order Detection (MOOD) framework by allowing each candidate solution to undergo only a single revision. This modification enables our a posteriori schemes to achieve competitive computational speed while permitting small, though non-zero, maximum principle violations.The linear advection equation is solved in both one and two dimensions and we compare variations of these limited schemes based on their ability to maintain a maximum principle, solution quality over long time integration and computational cost.This analysis reveals a fundamental tradeoff between these three aspects. The high-order a posteriori limited solutions boast excellent quality at long time-scales, taking full advantage of the sharp gradients of the high-order finite volume method. However, their relaxed implementation allows for consistent, albeit small, violations of the maximum principle. In contrast, high-order a priori limited solutions rigorously uphold the maximum principle but suffer from numerical artifacts and diffusion that increasingly dominate at extended time scales. The convex blending of revised fluxes can mitigate the maximum principle violations in a posteriori schemes but introduces more noticeable numerical artifacts. These results suggest a fundamental trade-off between robustness against numerical diffusion and the preservation of a strict maximum principle.Moreover, we compare two methods for computing the flux integrals along two-dimensional cell faces, revealing that one option is more cost-effective but leads to particularly large violations when used with the a priori limited scheme. Consequently, the a priori limited scheme is forced to use the more costly flux computation, making it significantly more expensive at higher-order than the a posteriori limited scheme on CPU architecture. This cost difference can be almost entirely mitigated using a GPU implementation of the same schemes, highlighting that GPUs are well-suited for high-order finite volume stencil operations.
Read full abstract